Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court held the children had become habitually resident in Kenya by mid-August 2025, so there was no wrongful retention and the mother’s return application failed.
As at the date of issue of the father's Children Act proceedings (29 July 2025), MP was habitually resident in Country B. The court found that MP's presence in England was always contingent on not exceeding 120 days per year due to tax residency, that his integration and lived experience in Country B (especially with his mother) outweighed the factors supporting habitual residence in England, and that recent experiences and connections in Country B were more immediate and substantial. Accordingly, the courts of Country B have primary jurisdiction over matters of parental responsibility for MP…
Source excerpt
The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the father gave clear and unequivocal consent to the mother removing the child to England, and that consent remained operative at the time of removal. Additionally, the court found that returning the child to New Zealand would expose the child to a grave risk of harm and an intolerable situation due to the mother's mental health vulnerabilities, lack of support, and exposure to domestic abuse, and that the protective measures offered by the father were insufficient. Both Article 13(a) and 13(b) defences were established, and the court exe…
Source excerpt
The court found the children were habitually resident in England and Wales and wrongfully retained in Costa Rica by the father. The respondent’s failure to engage, the risk of onward abduction to a non-Hague country, the emotional harm to the children, and the need for swift action constituted good reasons to exercise the inherent jurisdiction and order their immediate return, rather than await the outcome of Hague Convention proceedings.
Source excerpt
Messrs Burnham Law failed to act with the competence reasonably expected of solicitors by not preparing for trial, instructing counsel, or complying with court directions, directly causing wasted costs to the father. The court exercised its discretion to order Burnham Law to pay the father's wasted costs, including counsel fees and travel expenses.
Source excerpt
BN (A Child)(Abduction: Art 13(b)), Re [2026] EWHC 1158 (Fam) (14 May 2026)
Hague Convention return application to Connecticut refused after the court found grave risk under Article 13(b) because of domestic abuse and the mother's PTSD.
C (Article 13(b): Summary return to Lithuania), Re [2026] EWHC 1120 (Fam) (05 May 2026)
The High Court ordered C’s summary return to Lithuania, rejecting the father’s Article 13(b) grave-risk defence based on the mother’s health, alcohol use, and delay.
The High Court ordered a child’s summary return to Lithuania, rejecting the father’s Article 13(b) grave-risk defence based on the mother’s past mental health, alcohol use, and delay.
HF, KF and LF (No 2)(Children; Inherent Jurisdiction; Return Order), Re [2026] EWHC 1035 (Fam) (01 May 2026)
The High Court ordered the return of three children from Dubai to England, finding that the father’s wrongful retention had harmed their relationship with their mother.
FG, Re (A Child: Return Order to Lithuania) [2026] EWHC 1050 (Fam) (01 May 2026)
Hague Convention return proceedings concerning a 6-year-old child. The court found Lithuania was the child’s habitual residence and ordered return.
Explore more
